Re: [PATCH v8 06/11] remoteproc: mediatek: Probe multi-core SCP

[TingHan Shen (沈廷翰)]

Hi Mathieu,

On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 15:07 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 04:33:50PM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote:
> > The difference of single-core SCP and multi-core SCP device tree is
> > the presence of child device nodes described SCP cores. The SCP
> > driver populates the platform device and checks the child nodes
> > to identify whether it's a single-core SCP or a multi-core SCP.
> > 
> > The resource structure of the multi-core SCP is a list of remoteproc
> > instances which is different to the single-core SCP. The corresponding
> > resource releasing action is based on the type of SCP.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h |   4 +
> >  drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c    | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  2 files changed, 166 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 

(snip)

> > This code is complex and hard to read because rproc_add() is called in two
> different context.  From a code perspective single core remote processors should
> be treated as a one core cluster.
> 
> I am done reviewing this patchset.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 

I'll improve my patchset in the next version.
Thank you for the review comments!



> > +		if (ret)
> > +			goto add_fail;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +add_fail:
> > +	list_for_each_entry_continue(scp, cluster, elem) {
> > +		rproc_del(scp->rproc);
> > +	}
> > +init_fail:
> > +	if (cluster) {
> > +		list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(scp, temp, cluster, elem) {
> > +			list_del(&scp->elem);
> > +			scp_rproc_free(scp);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void scp_cluster_exit(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct list_head *cluster = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +	struct platform_device *cpdev;
> > +	struct mtk_scp *scp, *temp;
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(scp, temp, cluster, elem) {
> > +		list_del(&scp->elem);
> > +		cpdev = to_platform_device(scp->dev);
> > +		scp_rproc_exit(cpdev);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int scp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > +	struct device_node *core_node;
> >  	struct resource *res;
> >  	struct mtk_scp_of_regs scp_regs;
> >  	int ret;
> > @@ -976,21 +1094,43 @@ static int scp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		scp_regs.l1tcm_phys = res->start;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	return scp_rproc_init(pdev, &scp_regs);
> > +	ret = devm_of_platform_populate(dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to populate platform devices\n");
> > +
> > +	core_node = of_get_child_by_name(np, "scp");
> > +	of_node_put(core_node);
> 
> Please use of_get_available_child_count()
> 
> > +
> > +	if (!core_node) {
> > +		dev_info(dev, "single-core scp\n");
> > +
> > +		ret = scp_rproc_init(pdev, &scp_regs, of_device_get_match_data(dev), false);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to initialize single-core scp\n");
> > +	} else {
> > +		dev_info(dev, "multi-core scp\n");
> > +
> > +		ret = scp_cluster_init(pdev, &scp_regs);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to initialize scp cluster\n");
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int scp_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> > -	struct mtk_scp *scp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > -	int i;
> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > +	struct device_node *core_node;
> >  
> > -	rproc_del(scp->rproc);
> > -	scp_remove_rpmsg_subdev(scp);
> > -	scp_ipi_unregister(scp, SCP_IPI_INIT);
> > -	scp_unmap_memory_region(scp);
> > -	for (i = 0; i < SCP_IPI_MAX; i++)
> > -		mutex_destroy(&scp->ipi_desc[i].lock);
> > -	mutex_destroy(&scp->send_lock);
> > +	core_node = of_get_child_by_name(np, "scp");
> > +	of_node_put(core_node);
> > +
> > +	if (!core_node)
> > +		scp_rproc_exit(pdev);
> > +	else
> > +		scp_cluster_exit(pdev);
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -1069,12 +1209,19 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> >  	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> > +	&mt8195_of_data,
> > +	&mt8195_of_data_c1,
> > +	NULL
> > +};
> > +
> >  static const struct of_device_id mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> >  	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-scp", .data = &mt8183_of_data },
> >  	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-scp", .data = &mt8186_of_data },
> >  	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-scp", .data = &mt8188_of_data },
> >  	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-scp", .data = &mt8192_of_data },
> >  	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp", .data = &mt8195_of_data },
> > +	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp-dual", .data = &mt8195_of_data_cores },
> >  	{},
> >  };
> >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mtk_scp_of_match);
> > -- 
> > 2.18.0
> > 

-- 
Best regards,
TingHan